Is Water Baptism needed for Salvation? The Bible says no.

[asaph]

It is not true that 1 John 5:7 is absent in all pre-l6th century Greek manuscripts and New Testament translations. The text is found in eight extant Greek manuscripts, and five of them are dated before the 16th century (Greek miniscules 88, 221, 429, 629, 636). Furthermore, there is abundant support for 1 John 5:7 from the Latin translations. There are at least 8000 extant Latin manuscripts, and many of them contain 1 John 5:7f; the really important ones being the Old Latin, which church fathers such as Tertullian (AD 155-220) and Cyprian (AD 200-258) used. Now, out of the very few Old Latin manuscripts with the fifth chapter of First John, at least four of them contain the Comma. Since these Latin versions were derived from the Greek New Testament, there is reason to believe that 1 John 5:7 has very early Greek attestation, hitherto lost. There is also reason to believe that Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (AD 340-420), which contains the Johannine Comma, was translated from an untampered Greek text he had in his possession and that he regarded the Comma to be a genuine part of First John. Jerome in his Prologue to the Canonical Epistles wrote, "Irresponsible translators left out this testimony [i. e., 1 John 5:7f] in the Greek codices." Edward F. Hills concluded, "It was not trickery that was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the Textus Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking church."

This leads us to the so-called "promise" of Erasmus. Westcott and Hort advocate Bruce Metzger made this claim, which became the popular argument against the Johannine Comma. He wrote, "Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found—or made to order." This view against the authenticity of 1 John 5:7f is parroted by many even today. Is this what truly happened? H. J. de Jonge of the faculty of theology, Leiden University, an authority on Erasmus, says that Metzger’s view on Erasmus’ promise "has no foundation in Erasmus’ work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise." Yale University professor Roland Bainton, another Erasmian expert, agrees with de Jong, furnishing proof from Erasmus’ own writing that Erasmus inclusion of 1 John 5:7f was not due to a so-called "promise" but the fact that he believed ‘the verse was in the Vulgate and must therefore have been in the Greek text used by Jerome." The Erasmian "promise" is thus a myth!

It has been suggested that the Johannine Comma did not come from the apostle John himself but from an unknown person who invented and inserted it into 1 John 5 so that Christianity would have a clear Trinitarian proof text. Up until this point in time, no one has been able to identify this mysterious person who tried to "help" the church. He is probably a fictional character. In any case, it is highly unlikely that 1 John 5:7f is the work of a well-meaning interpolator. When we look at the text itself, the phrase, "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit," naturally reflects Johannine authorship (cf. John 1:1, 14). An interpolator would rather have used the more familiar and perhaps stronger Trinitarian formula—"the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." "The Word" or "The Logos" of 1 John 5:7f points to the apostle John as its source, for it is distinctively John who used the term "the Word" to mean "Christ" in all his writings.

There is nothing in the Johannine Comma that goes against the fundamentals of the Christian faith. It is thoroughly Biblical and theologically accurate in its Trinitarian statement. There is no good reason why we should not regard it as authentic and employ it as the clearest proof-text in the Scripture for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.

(Copied from – Foundation Magazine)

[nChrist]

Oklahoma Howdy to All,

I post this for thought and additional study, not debate.

First, if you are a child of God, you have been baptized by the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit), with or without water baptism. I love my brothers and sisters in Christ who have been baptized in water and have no desire to hurt anyone's feelings or cause any to question their faith.

What follows is a series of questions and answers I believe the Holy Bible supports with overwhelming evidence. The end question is where these questions and answers takes you.

Was there water and blood prior to the cross?

Yes. There was the blood of animals used in sacrifice and water baptism as a shadow of things to come. Water baptism was a cleansing ritual.
__________

Was there water and blood at the cross?

Yes. There was the precious blood of Jesus, water from HIS side, and our Lord and Saviour, THE LIVING WATER.
__________

Is there water and blood after the cross?

Yes. The precious blood of Jesus cleanses HIS children of all unrighteousness. The shadow of cleansing by water became the reality of the perfect sacrifice and cleansing by the very blood of our precious Lord and Saviour. The water is not earthly water, rather it is LIVING WATER, springing up unto eternal life through and in Jesus Christ. We have the LIVING WATER in our hearts.

Thanks be unto God for HIS unspeakable GIFT!

Love In Christ,
Tom
 

[Petro]

asaph,

You have reduced your argument to that of a coma.

You simply have swallowed the hook line and sinker of it. Evidenced by you posting the article from this allmilinialist paper, which confirms you trust in others to expound scriptutres to you, not the Spirit of God, which you claim to possess.

The fact is that regardless of whether these verses are authenic or not, they do not confirm your interpretation of the water as refering to water baptism, it is a deceptive and weak argument.

While I am not a subscriber to the Wescott &  Hort work, this coma, remains an unsolved matter and could very well have been added to the latin version to bolster the fight against ArianISM, in the early fourth century embraced by the eastern portion of the church.

Though these verses are not necessary to prove the triune Godhead (as there are many others), in heaven or the earth, our faith in the central doctrine of Christainity, is based on the total sum, of all that is written, not just two verses.

The trinity is not the issue, herein, it is your interpretation of what the witness of the water is.

And it is not your water baptism, but  a testimony to the diety of Jesus, The Spirit of God testifies, that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, the Water also on the earth, gives testimony and agrees that it is Jesus, who baptized them into Moses in the cloud and the sea and  "THAT ROCK" (1 Cor 10:1-4) that followed them in the desert those 40 years, and provided them the same spiritual meat and drink:
............"for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them:and that Rock was Christ."

And the Blood, was the same Blood, offered up at the altar (Lev 17:11)

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

You think this speaking of the blood of bulls and goats, which could never take away sin??

If you read the scriptures superficialy, you would answer in the affirmative, the scuiptures are careful to tell us, that the blood of these animals could never take away sin.

But Jesus, after once shedding His blood once and for all sat down at the right hand of God, until his enemies be made His footstool.

And it is His blood which testifies together with the Spirit and the Water, both in heaven and earth, that he is the Sacrificial  Lamb of the Everlasting Covenant, which was ratified with His blood.

You and others who speak out of both sides of your mouth, while claiming to believe the Blood of this Covenant, deny its efficacy in as much as it covers all sin, because you concentrate on the physical, instead of the spiritual, so you work and teach that work is counted towards salvation.

The Spirit , The Water, and the Blood agree, that Jesus is the Christ, this is what John had in view, when and if he spoke the words attributed to him.

1 Jhn 5
10  He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11  And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12  He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13  These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Faith in the Living Word of God, produces the Holy Spirit, not any act of  any external work.

Blessings,

Petro

[Petro]

Oklahoma Howdy to All,

I post this for thought and additional study, not debate.

First, if you are a child of God, you have been baptized by the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit), with or without water baptism. I love my brothers and sisters in Christ who have been baptized in water and have no desire to hurt anyone's feelings or cause any to question their faith.

What follows is a series of questions and answers I believe the Holy Bible supports with overwhelming evidence. The end question is where these questions and answers takes you.

Was there water and blood prior to the cross?

Yes. There was the blood of animals used in sacrifice and water baptism as a shadow of things to come. Water baptism was a cleansing ritual.
__________

Was there water and blood at the cross?

Yes. There was the precious blood of Jesus, water from HIS side, and our Lord and Saviour, THE LIVING WATER.
__________

Is there water and blood after the cross?

Yes. The precious blood of Jesus cleanses HIS children of all unrighteousness. The shadow of cleansing by water became the reality of the perfect sacrifice and cleansing by the very blood of our precious Lord and Saviour. The water is not earthly water, rather it is LIVING WATER, springing up unto eternal life through and in Jesus Christ. We have the LIVING WATER in our hearts.

Thanks be unto God for HIS unspeakable GIFT!

Love In Christ,
Tom
 

Amen Tom,

Only by studying the Word of God can one gleam these truths from the Word of God..

These are great an precious promises.

God Bless,
Petro

[Ambassador4Christ]

Oklahoma Howdy to All,

I post this for thought and additional study, not debate.

First, if you are a child of God, you have been baptized by the Holy Ghost (Holy Spirit), with or without water baptism. I love my brothers and sisters in Christ who have been baptized in water and have no desire to hurt anyone's feelings or cause any to question their faith.

What follows is a series of questions and answers I believe the Holy Bible supports with overwhelming evidence. The end question is where these questions and answers takes you.

Was there water and blood prior to the cross?

Yes. There was the blood of animals used in sacrifice and water baptism as a shadow of things to come. Water baptism was a cleansing ritual.
__________

Was there water and blood at the cross?

Yes. There was the precious blood of Jesus, water from HIS side, and our Lord and Saviour, THE LIVING WATER.
__________

Is there water and blood after the cross?

Yes. The precious blood of Jesus cleanses HIS children of all unrighteousness. The shadow of cleansing by water became the reality of the perfect sacrifice and cleansing by the very blood of our precious Lord and Saviour. The water is not earthly water, rather it is LIVING WATER, springing up unto eternal life through and in Jesus Christ. We have the LIVING WATER in our hearts.

Thanks be unto God for HIS unspeakable GIFT!

Love In Christ,
Tom
 

Good teaching Brother BEP, Amen

[Brother Love]

The Lord’s instructions to His apostles that are set forth in Matthew 28:19 pertain to the time in Israel’s program when the "gospel of the kingdom" will be going out to "all nations" and they will be "teaching all nations." The specified time for that was not immediately following the Lord’s return to heaven. But rather in accordance with the Lord’s teachings regarding the climactic stage of God’s program with Israel, it would come after repentance had been given to Israel and the final installment to Israel’s program involving the day of the Lord had begun. Then the "gospel of the kingdom" would be "preached in all the world for a witness to all nations." And in view of the fact that it will be those of the "nations" that will be hearing the "gospel of the kingdom," (who unlike Israel know not by nature the true and living God and the reality of the nature of the Godhead), they will be instructed in the truth of Who the true and living God is and then commanded to be baptized in the "name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" (the three persons of the Godhead) when any of them respond positively to the "gospel of the kingdom."

The apostles’ preaching and practice in Acts 2:38, however, is not to the "nations" in accordance with Matthew 28:19-20. And the apostles knew it, hence they don’t operate on the instructions of Matthew 28. Instead their preaching and practice is to Israel in accordance with the extension of mercy and forbearance that God was giving to Israel following the rejection of their Christ. During that extension God was giving "repentance to Israel" before the scheduled final installment to Israel’s program was ready to begin, in which He would have His day of purging and avenging wrath. Therefore Peter preached the truth to the people of Israel regarding who Jesus of Nazareth is, (that He is their Christ and that they had rejected Him), and then he responded to those who were persuaded of the truth regarding what he said. When he did so the issue wasn’t one of baptizing them in the name of the Godhead, (as if they were ones who by nature didn’t know the true and living God but now were acknowledging the Godhead and were now identifying themselves with Him instead of idolatry or atheism). Rather the issue with the believing Jews was one of the apostles baptizing them "in the name of Jesus Christ," (as ones who were now acknowledging the truth that Jesus is their Christ, and that they were now identifying themselves with Him and disassociating themselves from the rebellious element in Israel, which was soon to be destroyed). Hence the difference between the situation in Acts 2:38 and the Lord’s instructions to His apostles in Matthew 28:19.

Of course the use of water baptisms was a natural thing in God’s program with Israel, seeing He dealt with them as "children" and so employed various overt "rudiments of the world," like water baptisms, along with other "carnal ordinances" in His interactions and dealings with them. Things, however, are different in this present dispensation of God’s grace with both Israel’s program suspended and God dealing with us as "sons" and not "children." Water baptisms now have no role, function, or validity in this present dispensation.

[Ambassador4Christ]

Real Good Study Bro

Water baptisms now have no role, function, or validity in this present dispensation.

Amen

[ollie]

Strong's Number: 907
Transliterated: baptizo
Phonetic: bap-tid'-zo

Text:  from a derivative of 911; to immerse, submerge; to make overwhelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the N.T.) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: --Baptist, baptize, wash.


Strong's Number: 911
Transliterated: bapto
Phonetic: bap'-to

Text:  a primary verb; to overwhelm, i.e. cover wholly with a fluid; in the N.T. only in a qualified or specially, sense, i.e. (literally) to moisten (a part of one's person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye): --dip.

[Petro]

Strong's Number: 907
Transliterated: baptizo
Phonetic: bap-tid'-zo

Text:  from a derivative of 911; to immerse, submerge; to make overwhelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the N.T.) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: --Baptist, baptize, wash.


Strong's Number: 911
Transliterated: bapto
Phonetic: bap'-to

Text:  a primary verb; to overwhelm, i.e. cover wholly with a fluid; in the N.T. only in a qualified or specially, sense, i.e. (literally) to moisten (a part of one's person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye): --dip.

So now you will jump to conclusions and say, it speaks of water, when it could be speaking of blood.

Isa 1
18  Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

The baptism of John for sure was in water. But the Baptism with the Holy Spirit and Fire is not.

Blessings,

Petro

Jesus's baptizo, is with the Holy Spirit and Fire.

[Brother Love]

Strong's Number: 907
Transliterated: baptizo
Phonetic: bap-tid'-zo

Text:  from a derivative of 911; to immerse, submerge; to make overwhelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the N.T.) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: --Baptist, baptize, wash.


Strong's Number: 911
Transliterated: bapto
Phonetic: bap'-to

Text:  a primary verb; to overwhelm, i.e. cover wholly with a fluid; in the N.T. only in a qualified or specially, sense, i.e. (literally) to moisten (a part of one's person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye): --dip.

The Word of God:

Only"ONE"Baptism (Ephesians 4:5)

Brother Love

[Ambassador4Christ]

The Word of God:

Only"ONE"Baptism (Ephesians 4:5)

Brother Love

I believe what the Word of God says Just ONE Baptism.

Amen Bro

[Agur3046]

Dear Ollie

From Blueletterbible.org

1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)

2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe

3) to overwhelm
++++
Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1068183026-6411.html

       the Word by the context can means water but also Identification.  Now to assume that every word Baptism means water, then that means in Luke 12:50, it means water too:

  Luke 12
50   But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

       Are we to assume that every word that says Baptism means Water?  No, we ought to interpret words by the sentence and subject-context.

agur

[Petro]

Dear Ollie

From Blueletterbible.org

1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)

2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe

3) to overwhelm
++++
Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1068183026-6411.html

       the Word by the context can means water but also Identification.  Now to assume that every word Baptism means water, then that means in Luke 12:50, it means water too:

  Luke 12
50   But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

       Are we to assume that every word that says Baptism means Water?  No, we ought to interpret words by the sentence and subject-context.

agur

agur,

Good point....

The most glaringly obvious point of Jesus words, at;

  Luke 12
50  But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

is;  that Jesus had already been water baptized.

Blessings, Petro

[asaph]

asaph,

You have reduced your argument to that of a coma.

You simply have swallowed the hook line and sinker of it. Evidenced by you posting the article from this allmilinialist paper, which confirms you trust in others to expound scriptutres to you, not the Spirit of God, which you claim to possess.

The fact is that regardless of whether these verses are authenic or not, they do not confirm your interpretation of the water as refering to water baptism, it is a deceptive and weak argument.

While I am not a subscriber to the Wescott &  Hort work, this coma, remains an unsolved matter and could very well have been added to the latin version to bolster the fight against ArianISM, in the early fourth century embraced by the eastern portion of the church.

Though these verses are not necessary to prove the triune Godhead (as there are many others), in heaven or the earth, our faith in the central doctrine of Christainity, is based on the total sum, of all that is written, not just two verses.

The trinity is not the issue, herein, it is your interpretation of what the witness of the water is.

And it is not your water baptism, but  a testimony to the diety of Jesus, The Spirit of God testifies, that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, the Water also on the earth, gives testimony and agrees that it is Jesus, who baptized them into Moses in the cloud and the sea and  "THAT ROCK" (1 Cor 10:1-4) that followed them in the desert those 40 years, and provided them the same spiritual meat and drink:
............"for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them:and that Rock was Christ."

And the Blood, was the same Blood, offered up at the altar (Lev 17:11)

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

You think this speaking of the blood of bulls and goats, which could never take away sin??

If you read the scriptures superficialy, you would answer in the affirmative, the scuiptures are careful to tell us, that the blood of these animals could never take away sin.

But Jesus, after once shedding His blood once and for all sat down at the right hand of God, until his enemies be made His footstool.

And it is His blood which testifies together with the Spirit and the Water, both in heaven and earth, that he is the Sacrificial  Lamb of the Everlasting Covenant, which was ratified with His blood.

You and others who speak out of both sides of your mouth, while claiming to believe the Blood of this Covenant, deny its efficacy in as much as it covers all sin, because you concentrate on the physical, instead of the spiritual, so you work and teach that work is counted towards salvation.

The Spirit , The Water, and the Blood agree, that Jesus is the Christ, this is what John had in view, when and if he spoke the words attributed to him.

1 Jhn 5
10  He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11  And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12  He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13  These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

Faith in the Living Word of God, produces the Holy Spirit, not any act of  any external work.

Blessings,

Petro

My other cheek is turned.

asaph

[Brother Love]

My other cheek is turned.

asaph


Your out of cheeks Bro, what are you going to do now?  

Brother Love